In the case of Mercer v. Theriot in 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving maritime law and personal injury claims. The plaintiff, Mercer, was injured while working as a seaman aboard a vessel owned by his employer, Theriot Offshore Transportation Corporation. He filed suit under the Jones Act for negligence and unseaworthiness of the vessel which resulted in his injuries. However, he had previously signed an employment contract that included an arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. The main issue before the court was whether this arbitration agreement could limit or waive Mercer's statutory rights under federal maritime law to seek damages for personal injuries caused by negligence or unseaworthiness of vessels. The Supreme Court held that such agreements are enforceable and do not infringe upon seamen's statutory rights provided they are entered into freely without coercion or undue influence; thus affirming lower courts' decisions favoring Theriot Offshore Transportation Corporation.

The dissenting opinion in the Mercer v. Theriot case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring non-resident litigants to post bond before filing suit was fundamentally unfair and discriminatory. The dissent contended that this law effectively barred out-of-state individuals from accessing Louisiana courts, thereby violating their constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. They also pointed out that there were other less restrictive means available for ensuring payment of court costs and damages, such as allowing courts to order payment at the conclusion of litigation or permitting them to seize assets if necessary. Therefore, they believed it was unnecessary and unjustifiable for Louisiana to impose such a heavy burden on non-residents seeking justice in its courts.